On counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs
|
|
- Brook Watts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 121 (2005) On counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs Martin Dyer Leslie Ann Goldberg Mike Paterson October 17, 2005 Abstract We give a dichotomy theorem for the problem of counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs. H is a fixed directed acyclic graph. The problem is, given an input digraph G, how many homomorphisms are there from G to H. We give a graph-theoretic classification, showing that for some digraphs H, the problem is in P and for the rest of the digraphs H the problem is #P-complete. An interesting feature of the dichotomy, which is absent from related dichotomy results, is that there is a rich supply of tractable graphs H with complex structure. 1 Introduction Our result is a dichotomy theorem for the problem of counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs. A homomorphism from a (directed) graph G = (V, E) to a (directed) graph H = (V, E) is a function from V to V that preserves (directed) edges. That is, the function maps every edge of G to an edge of H. Hell and Nešetřil gave a dichotomy theorem for the decision problem for undirected graphs H. In this case, H is an undirected graph (possibly with self-loops). The input, G, is an undirected simple graph. The question is Is there a homomorphism from G to H. Hell and Nešetřil [7] showed that the decision problem is in P if the fixed graph H has a loop, or is bipartite. Otherwise, it is NP-complete. Dyer and Greenhill [3] established a dichotomy theorem for the corresponding counting problem in which the question is How many homomorphisms are there from G to H. They showed that the problem is in P if every component of H is either a complete graph with all loops present or a complete bipartite graph with no loops present 1. Otherwise, it is #P-complete. Bulatov and Grohe [1] extended the counting dichotomy theorem to the case in which H is an undirected multigraph. Their result will be discussed in more detail below. In this paper, we consider the related counting problem for directed graphs. First, consider the corresponding decision problem. H is a fixed digraph, and the problem, given an input Partially supported by the EPSRC grant Discontinuous Behaviour in the Complexity of Randomized Algorithms. Some of the work was done while the authors were visiting the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley. School of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. 1 The graph with a singleton isolated vertex is taken to be a (degenerate) complete bipartite graph with no loops. 1 ISSN
2 digraph G, is Is there a homomorphism from G to H? It is conjectured [8, Conjecture 5.12] that there is a dichotomy theorem for this problem, in the sense that, for every H, the problem is either polynomial-time solvable or NP-complete. Currently, there is no graphtheoretic conjecture stating what the two classes of digraphs will look like. Obtaining such a dichotomy may be difficult. Indeed (see [Theorem 5.14][8]), Feder and Vardi have shown [5, 6] that the resolution of the dichotomy conjecture for digraphs would also resolve their longstanding dichotomy conjecture for constraint satisfaction problems. There are some known dichotomy classifications for restricted classes of digraphs, however, the problem is open [8] even when H is restricted to be an oriented tree. In this paper, we give a dichotomy theorem for the corresponding counting problem, for the class of digraphs in which H can be any acyclic directed graph. An interesting feature of this problem, which is different from the previous dichotomy theorems that we have mentioned, is that there is a rich supply of tractable graphs H with complex structure. The formal statement of our dichotomy is given below. Here is an informal description. First, the problem is #P-complete unless H is a layered digraph, meaning that the vertices of H can be arranged in levels, with edges going from one level to the next. We show (see Theorem 6.1 for a precise statement) that the problem is in P for a layered digraph H if the following condition is true (otherwise it is #P-complete). The condition is that, for every pair of vertices x and x on level i and every pair of vertices y and y on level j > i, the product of the graphs H x,y and H x,y is isomorphic to the product of the graphs H x,y and H x,y. The details of the product that we use (from [4]) are given below. The notion of isomorphism is the usual (graph-theoretic) one, except that certain short components are dropped, as described below. The precise definition of H x,y is given below, but the reader can think of it as the subgraph between vertex x and vertex y. Some fairly complex graphs H satisfy this condition (see, for example, Figure 5), so for these graphs H the counting problem is in P. Our algorithm for counting graph homomorphisms for tractable digraphs H is based on factoring. A difficulty is that the relevant algebra lacks unique factorisation. We deal with this by introducing preconditioners. See Section 6. Before giving precise definitions and proving our dichotomy theorem, we note that our proof relies on two fundamental results of Bulatov and Grohe [1] and Lovász [10]. These will be introduced below in Section 3. 2 Notation and definitions We use the notation N = {1, 2, 3,...} and N 0 = N {0}. For m, n N 0, we will write [m, n] = {m, m + 1,..., n 1, n} and [n] = [1, n]. We will generally let H = (V, E) denote a fixed colouring digraph, and G = (V, E) an input digraph. We denote the empty digraph (, ) by Homomorphisms Let G = (V, E), H = (V, E). If f : V V, and e = (v, v ) E, we write f(e) = (f(v), f(v )). Then f is a homomorphism from G to H (or an H-colouring of G) if f(e) E. We will denote the number of distinct homomorphisms from G to H by #H(G). Note that #H(0) = 1 for all H. Let f be a homomorphism from H 1 = (V 1, E 1 ) to H 2 = (V 2, E 2 ). If f is also injective, it is a monomorphism. Then E 1 = f(e 1 ) E 2. If there exist monomorphisms f from H 1 to H 2 and f from H 2 to H 1, then f is an isomorphism from H 1 to H 2. Then E 1 = f(e 1 ) E 2 = 2
3 f (E 2 ) E 1, so f(e 1 ) = E 2 which implies f(e 1 ) = E 2. If there is an isomorphism from H 1 to H 2, we write H 1 = H2 and say H 1 is isomorphic to H 2. The relation = is easily seen to be an equivalence. We will usually use H 1 to denote an equivalence class of isomorphic graphs, and write H 1 = H 2 rather than H 1 = H2. In this paper, we consider the particular case where H = (V, E) is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Thus, in particular, H has no self-loops. Clearly #H(G) = 0 if G is not also a DAG. 2.2 Layered graphs A DAG H = (V, E) is a layered digraph with l layers if V is partitioned into (l + 1) levels V i (i [0, l]) such that (u, u ) E only if u V i 1, u V i for some i [l]. We will allow V i =. We will call V 0 the top and V l the bottom. Nodes in V 0 are called sources and nodes in V l are called sinks. (Note that the usage of the words source and sink varies. In this paper a vertex is called a source only if it is in V 0. A vertex in V i for some i 0 is not called a source, even if it has in-degree 0.) Layer i is the edge set E i E of the subgraph H [i 1,i] induced by V i 1 V i. More generally we will write H [i,j] for the subgraph induced by j k=i V k. Let G l be the class of all layered digraphs with l layers and let C l be the subclass consisting of l-layered digraphs in which every connected component spans all l + 1 levels. If H C l and G = (V, E) C l, with V i denoting level i (i [0, l]) and E i denoting layer i (i [l]), then any homomorphism from G to H is a sequence of functions f i : V i V i (i [0, l]) which induce a mapping from E i into E i (i [l]). We use C l to define an equivalence relation on G l. In particular, for H 1, H 2 G l, H 1 H 2 iff Ĥ1 = Ĥ2, where Ĥi C l is obtained from H i by deleting every connected component that spans fewer than l + 1 levels. 2.3 Sums and products If H 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), H 2 = (V 2, E 2 ) are disjoint digraphs, the union H 1 + H 2 is the digraph H = (V 1 V 2, E 1 E 2 ). Clearly 0 is the additive identity and H 1 + H 2 = H 2 + H 1. If G is connected then #(H 1 + H 2 )(G) = #H 1 (G) + #H 2 (G), and if G = G 1 + G 2 then #H(G) = #H(G 1 )#H(G 2 ). The layered cross product [4] H = H 1 H 2 of layered digraphs H 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), H 2 = (V 2, E 2 ) G l is the layered digraph H = (V, E) G l such that V i = V 1i V 2i (i [0, l]), and ( (u1, u 2 ), (u 1, u 2 )) E if and only if (u 1, u 1 ) E 1 and (u 2, u 2 ) E 2. We will usually write H 1 H 2 simply as H 1 H 2. It is clear that H 1 H 2 is connected only if both H 1 and H 2 are connected. The converse is not necessarily true. See Figure 1. PSfrag replacements = Figure 1: A disconnected product 3
4 Nevertheless, we have the following lemma. Lemma 2.1. If H 1, H 2 C l and both of these graphs contain a directed path from every source to every sink then exactly one component of H 1 H 2 spans all l + 1 levels. The other components do not include level 0 or level l. Proof. There is a directed path from every source of H 1 H 2 to every sink. Thus, the sources and sinks are all in the same connected component. Note that H 1 H 2 = H 2 H 1, using the isomorphism (u 1, u 2 ) (u 2, u 1 ). If G, H 1, H 2 C l then any homomorphism f : G H 1 H 2 can be written as a product f 1 f 2 of homomorphisms f 1 : G H 1 and f 2 : G H 2, and any such product is a homomorphism. Thus #H 1 H 2 (G) = #H 1 (G) #H 2 (G). Observe that the directed path P l of length l gives the multiplicative identity 1 and that 0H = H0 = 0 for all H. It also follows easily that H(H 1 + H 2 ) = HH 1 + HH 2, so distributes over +. The algebra A = (G l, +,, 0, 1) is a commutative semiring. The + operation is clearly cancellative. We will show in Lemma 3.6 that is also cancellative, at least for C l. In many respects, this algebra resembles arithmetic on N 0, but there is an important difference. In A we do not have unique factorisation into primes. A prime is any H G l which has only the trivial factorisation H = 1H. Here we may have H = H 1 H 2 = H 1 H 2 with H 1, H 2, H 1, H 2 prime and no pair equal, even if all the graphs are connected. Example 2.2. Let K 1,m be the usual undirected bipartite clique K 1,m, but with all edges directed from the root vertex, and let K m,1 be K 1,m with all edges reversed. The graphs H 1, H 2, H 1, H 2 will all have three layers. Each has top layer K 1,m1, middle layer a disjoint union of K 1,m s, and bottom layer K m3,1. We specify the subgraphs in each layer in the following table. We show H 1 in Figure 2, where all edges are directed downwards. Figure 2: The graph H 1 in Example 2.2 Graph Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 H 1 K1,4 K1,8 + K 1,2 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 K12,1 H 2 K1,9 K1,8 + K 1,4 + K 1,2 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 K20,1 H 1 H 2 K 1,6 K1,8 + K 1,4 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 K16,1 K 1,6 K1,8 + K 1,2 + K 1,2 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 + K 1,1 K15,1 4
5 It is clear that H 1, H 2, H 1, H 2 are connected, and it is not difficult to show that none of them has a nontrivial factorisation. However, it is easy to verify that H 1 H 2 = H 1 H 2. The layered cross product was defined in [4] in the context of interconnection networks. It is similar to the (non-layered) direct product [9], which also lacks unique factorisation, but they are not identical. In general, they have different numbers of vertices and edges. 3 Fundamentals Our proof relies on two fundamental results of Bulatov and Grohe [1] and Lovász [10]. First we give the basic result of Lovász [10]. (See also [8, Theorem 2.11].) If H = (V, E), G = (V, E) are DAGs, we denote the number of monomorphisms from G to H by H(G). The following is essentially a special case of Lovász [10, Theorem 3.6], though stated rather differently. We give a proof since it yields additional information. Theorem 3.1 (Lovász). If #H 1 (G) = #H 2 (G) for all G, then H 1 = H 2. Proof. Let f be any homomorphism from G to H. Then f 1 induces a partition I of V into disjoint sets S I,1,..., S I,kI such that each S I,i (i [k I ]) is independent in G. Each partition I fixes subsets S I,i V which map to the same u i V. Let I be the set of all such partitions. With the relation I I whenever I is a refinement of I, P G = (I, ) is a poset. Note that P G depends only on G. We will write for the partition into singletons, so I for any I I. Let G/I be the digraph obtained from G by identifying all vertices in S I,i (i [k I ]). Then we have #H(G) = #H(G/ ) = I I H(G/I) = I I H(G/I)ζ(, I), where ζ(i, I ) = 1 if I I, and ζ(i, I ) = 0 otherwise, defines the ζ-function of P G. More generally, the same reasoning gives #H(G/I) = I I H(G/I ) = I I H(G/I )ζ(i, I ). Now Möbius inversion for posets [11, Ch. 25] implies that the matrix ζ : I I {0, 1} has a unique inverse µ : I I Z. It follows directly that H(G) = I I #H(G/I)µ(, I). Using the assumption of the theorem, for every G we now have H 1 (G) = I I #H 1 (G/I)µ(, I) = I I #H 2 (G/I)µ(, I) = H 2 (G). (1) In particular this implies H 2 (H 1 ) = H 1 (H 1 ) > 0, so there is a monomorphism f from H 1 into H 2. By symmetry, there is also a monomorphism f from H 2 into H 1. Remark 3.2. In this paper, the digraph H is always a DAG, so it has no self-loops. However, if we generalise to the situation in which H 1 and H 2 can have both looped and unlooped vertices (but every vertex in G is unlooped), as in the usual definition of the general H- colouring problem [3], the above proof is no longer valid. The reason is that S I,i must be 5
6 an independent set if u i is unlooped, but can be arbitrary if u i is looped. Thus P G no longer depends only on G. However, if H 1 and H 2 have all their vertices looped, an obvious modification of the proof goes through. Whether the theorem remains true for H with both looped and unlooped vertices is, as far as we know, an open question. Note that, if G C l, the poset P G is a lattice since it possesses a (unique) element such I for all I I, with G/ = P l. The following variant of Theorem 3.1 is useful. Theorem 3.3. If H 1, H 2 C l and #H 1 (G) = #H 2 (G) for all G C l, then H 1 = H 2. The proof follows from the proof of Theorem 3.1 since the only instances of G used in that proof are of the form H 1 /I or H 2 /I and these are in C l. Similar reasoning gives the following corollaries. Corollary 3.4. Suppose H k = (V k, E k ) (k = 1, 2). If there is any G with #H 1 (G) #H 2 (G), there is a G such that 0 < V max k=1,2 V k. Proof. Clearly G must be nonempty. Assume V 1 V 2. If V 1 < V 2, taking G 0 = ({v 0 }, ) gives #H 1 (G 0 ) = V 1 V 2 = #H 2 (G 0 ), so we may take V = 1 V 2. Otherwise, since H 1 H 2, either H 2 (H 1 ) H 1 (H 1 ) or H 2 (H 2 ) H 1 (H 2 ). In the former case, we can use Equation 1 with G = H 1 to see that one of the H 1 /I must be such that #H 1 (H 1 /I) #H 2 (H 1 /I). In the latter case, one of the H 2 /I must be such that #H 2 (H 2 /I) #H 1 (H 2 /I). But all the graphs H 1 /I, H 2 /I have at most max i=1,2 V i vertices. Corollary 3.5. Suppose H 1 = (V 1, E 1 ), H 2 = (V 2, E 2 ) C l. If there is any G C l with #H 1 (G) #H 2 (G), there is such a G such that 0 < V max k=1,2 V k. Therefore we can find a witness to the predicate G : #H 1 (G) #H 2 (G), if one exists, among the graphs of the form H 1 /I and H 2 /I. Lemma 3.6. If H 1 H = H 2 H for H 1, H 2, H C l, then H 1 = H 2. Proof. Suppose G C l. Since H C l, #H(G) 0. Also, since H 1 and H 2 are in C l and H 1 H = H 2 H, #H 1 (G)#H(G) = #H 2 (G)#H(G) so #H 1 (G) = #H 2 (G). Now use Theorem 3.3. Here is another similar lemma that we will need. Lemma 3.7. If H 1, H 2, H C l and each of these contains a directed path from every source to every sink and H 1 H H 2 H then H 1 = H 2. Proof. Suppose G C l. Since H C l, #H(G) 0. Let Ĥ1 be the single full component of H 1 H from Lemma 2.1. Similarly, let Ĥ2 be the single full component of H 2 H. Then since G C l, #Ĥ1(G) = #H 1 H(G) = #H 1 (G)#H(G) and #Ĥ2(G) = #H 2 H(G) = #H 2 (G)#H(G). So since #Ĥ1(G) = #Ĥ2(G) by the equivalence in the statement of the lemma, we have #H 1 (G) = #H 2 (G). Now use Theorem
7 The second fundamental result is a theorem of Bulatov and Grohe [1, Theorem 1], which provides a powerful generalisation of a theorem of Dyer and Greenhill [3]. Let A = (A ij ) be a k k matrix of non-negative rationals. We view A as a weighted digraph such that there is an edge {i, j} with weight A ij if A ij > 0. Given a digraph G = (V, E), Eval(A) is the problem of computing the partition function Z A (G) = A σ(u)σ(v). (2) σ:v {1,...,k} (u,v) E In particular, if A is the adjacency matrix of a digraph H, Z A (G) = #H(G). Thus Eval(A) has the same complexity as #H. If A is symmetric, corresponding to a weighted undirected graph, the following theorem characterises the complexity of Eval(A). Theorem 3.8 (Bulatov and Grohe). Let A be a non-negative rational symmetric matrix. (1) If A is connected and not bipartite, then Eval(A) is in polynomial time if the row rank of A is at most 1; otherwise Eval(A) is #P-complete. (2) If A is connected and bipartite, then Eval(A) is in polynomial time if the row rank of A is at most 2; otherwise Eval(A) is #P-complete. (3) If A is not connected, then Eval(A) is in polynomial time if each of its connected components satisfies the corresponding condition stated in (1) or (2); otherwise Eval(A) is #P-complete. 4 Reduction from acyclic H to layered H Let H = (V, E) be a DAG. Clearly #H is in #P. We will call H easy if #H is in P and hard if #H is #P-complete. We will show that H is hard unless it can be represented as a layered digraph. Let N k (u, u ) be the number of paths of length k from u to u in H. Say that vertices u, u V are k-compatible if, for some vertex w, there is a length-k path from u to w and from u to w. We say that H is k-good if, for every k-compatible pair (u, u ), there is a rational number λ such that N k (u, w) = λn k (u, w) ( w V). Lemma 4.1. If there is a k such that H is not k-good then #H is #P-complete. Proof. Fix k, u, and u such that u and u are k-compatible, but there is no λ. Let A be the adjacency matrix of H and let A = A k (A k ) T. Note that (A k ) u,w = N k (u, w). First, we show that Eval(A ) is #P-hard. Note that A is symmetric with non-negative rational entries. Let A be the square sub-matrix of A corresponding to the connected component containing u and u. Note that u and u are in the same connected component since they are k-compatible. Also, there are loops on vertices u and u, so A is not bipartite. To show that Eval(A ) is #P-complete, we need only show that the rank of A is bigger than 1. To do this, we just need to find a 2 2 submatrix that is non-singular, i.e. with nonzero determinant. Take the principal submatrix indexed by rows u and u and columns u and u. The determinant is ( w N k(u, w) 2) ( w N k(u, w) 2) ( w N k(u, w)n k (u, w)) 2. By Cauchy-Schwartz, the determinant is non-negative, and is zero only if λ exists, which we have assumed not to be the case. Thus Eval(A ) is #P-complete. 7
8 Now we use the hardness of Eval(A ) to show that Eval(A) is #P-hard. To do this, take an undirected graph G which is an instance of Eval(A ). Construct a digraph G by taking every edge {v, v } of G and replacing it with a digraph consisting of a directed length-k path P k from v to a new vertex w and a directed length-k path P k from v to w. Note that Eval(A) on G is the same as Eval(A ) on G. Thus Eval(A) is #P-complete, and #H has the same complexity. Remark 4.2. We have used the path P k as a gadget in the above reduction, in order to simulate an edge of an undirected graph. We can use any other DAG G having a single source and single sink in the same way, and we do that below. Remark 4.3. The statement of Lemma 4.1 is not symmetrical with respect to the direction of edges in H. However, let us define the digraph H R to be that obtained from H by reversing every edge. Then #H R and #H have the same complexity. To see this, simply observe that #H R (G R ) = #H(G) for all G. We are now in a position to prove the main result of this section. Lemma 4.4. If H is a DAG, but it cannot be represented as a layered digraph, then #H is #P-hard. Proof. Suppose that H contains two paths of different lengths from u to u. Choose k > 0, the length of the short path as small as possible. Choose k > k, the length of the long path, as large as possible subject to the choice of k. Suppose that k edges of the long path take us from u to b and that k edges of the long path take us from a to u. We claim that H has no length-k path from a to b. Since u and a are k-compatible, Lemma 4.1 will then give the conclusion. If k 2k, the claim follows from the fact that H has no cycles. (Either a = b or there is a path from b to a on the long path.) If k < 2k then the claim follows from the choice of k. If there were a length-k path from a to b then we could go from u to a following the long path, from a to b on a k-edge path and from b to u again following the long path. The concatenation of these paths would have length greater than k. 5 A structural condition for hardness We now formulate a sufficient condition for hardness of a layered digraph H = (V, E) G l. Suppose s V i and t V j for i < j. If there is a directed path in H from s to t, we let H st be the subgraph of H induced by s, t, and all components of H [i+1,j 1] to which both s and t are incident. Otherwise, we let H st = 0. Lemma 5.1. If there exist x, x V 0, y, y V l such that H xy H x y H xy H x y, and at most one of H xy, H xy, H x y, H x y is 0, then H is #P-complete. Proof. If exactly one of H xy, H xy, H x y, H x y is 0 then Lemma 4.1 applies. Suppose that none of H xy, H xy, H x y, H x y is 0. Note that x, x, y and y are all in the same component of H and that this component is in C l. By Lemma 2.1, H xy H x y contains a single component H xy;x y that spans all l + 1 levels. So if G C l, #H xy H x y (G) = #H xy;x y (G). Similarly, H xy H x y contains a single component H xy ;x y that spans all l+1 levels and #H xy H x y(g) = #H xy ;x y(g). By the assumption in the lemma, H xy;x y H xy ;x y. So, by Theorem 3.3, there is a Γ C l such that #H xy;x y (Γ) #H xy ;x y(γ). (3) 8
9 We can assume without loss of generality that Γ has a single source and sink since H xy;x y and H xy ;x y do. By Corollary 3.5, we can also ensure that Γ has at most V vertices. Equation (3) implies #H xy (Γ)#H x y (Γ) #H xy (Γ)#H x y(γ). (4) We now follow the proof of Lemma 4.1, replacing the path gadget with Γ as indicated in Remark 4.2. The matrix A is indexed by sources u of H and sinks w. A uw is #H uw (Γ). Then A = AA T so A uu = w A uwa u w. As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, we first show that Eval(A ) is #P-hard. Let A be the square submatrix corresponding to the connected component containing x and x. Note that they are in the same connected component since Γ C l and H x,y 0 and H x y 0 so A xy 0 and A x y 0. Consider the principal submatrix indexed by rows x and x and columns x and x. The determinant is ( ) ( ) ( 2 A xw A x w). w A 2 xw w A 2 x w As before, this is zero only if there is a λ such that A xw = λa x w for all w and this is false by (4) which says A xy A x y A xy A x y. Thus, the rank of A is bigger than 1 and Eval(A ) is #P-complete. Now let B be the adjacency matrix of H. Reduce Eval(A ) to Eval(B) as follows. Take an undirected graph G which is an instance of Eval(A ). Construct a digraph G by taking every edge {v, v } of G and replacing it with a digraph consisting of a copy of Γ with source v and a copy of Γ with source v with the sinks identified. Note that Eval(B) on G is the same as Eval(A ) on G. Thus Eval(B) is #P-complete, and #H has the same complexity. Clearly checking the condition of the Lemma and carrying out the search for the gadget Γ both require only constant time. Note that if x, x, y, y are not all in the same component of H then at least two of H xy, H x y, H xy, H x y are 0, so Lemma 5.1 has no content. w x x x x PSfrag replacements y y H y H xy y H x y Figure 3: The graph of Example 5.2 Example 5.2. Consider the H in Figure 3. We have H xy H x y = H xy and H xy H x y = H x y. Clearly H xy and H x y are not isomorphic, so this H is #P-complete. A suitable gadget is 9
10 Γ = H xy. The following table gives #H xy (Γ), #H xy (Γ), #H x y(γ) and #H x y (Γ). Since this matrix has rank 2 and is indecomposable, we can prove #P-completeness using Γ as a gadget. y y x 4 1 x 2 1 We may generalise Lemma 5.1 as follows. Lemma 5.3. If there exist x, x V i, y, y V j ( 0 i < j l) such that H xy H x y H xy H x y, and at most one of H xy, H x y, H xy, H x y is 0, then H is #P-complete. Proof. If l = j i, consider any G having l layers. For k = 0, 1,..., l l, let H k be the subgraph of H induced by V k V k+1 V k+l. Then #H(G) = #H k (G), l l k=0 so colouring with H is equivalent to colouring with the graph H = (V, E ) = l l k=0 H k G l. But x, x are in V 0, and c, d in V l. The result now follows from Lemma 5.1. Note that the N of Bulatov and Dalmau [2] is the special case of Lemma 5.3 in which j = i + 1, H xy = H xy = H x y = 1, and H x y = 0. More generally, any structure with H xy, H xy, H x y 0 and H x y = 0 is a special case of Lemma 5.3, so is sufficient to prove #P-completeness. Such a structure is equivalent to the existence of paths from x to y, x to y and x to y, when no path from x to y exists. We will call such a structure an N, since it generalises Bulatov and Dalmau s [2] construction. Lemma 5.4. If H C l is connected and not hard, then there exists a directed path from every source to every sink. Proof. Clearly, by Lemma 5.3, H must be N-free. Since it is connected, there is an undirected path from any x V 0 to any y V l. Suppose that the shortest undirected path from x to y is not a directed path. Then some part of it induces an N in H, giving a contradiction. Lemma 5.4 cannot be generalised by replacing source with node (at any level) with indegree 0 and replacing sink similarly, as the graph in Figure 4 illustrates. We will call four vertices x, x, y, y in H, with x, x V i and y, y V j (0 i < j l), a Lovász violation 2 if at most one of H xy, H x y, H xy, H x y is 0 and H xy H x y H xy H x y. A graph H with no Lovász violation will be called Lovász-good. We show next that this property is preserved under the layered cross product. Lemma 5.5. If H, H 1, H 2 C l and H = H 1 H 2 then H is Lovász-good if and only if both H 1 and H 2 are Lovász-good. Proof. Let H k = (V k, E k ) with levels V k,i (k = 1, 2; i [0, l]) and H = (V, E) with levels V i (i [0, l]). Suppose x k, x k V k,i, y k, y k V k,j (k = 1, 2; 0 i < j l), not necessarily 2 The name derives from the isomorphism theorem (Theorem 3.1) of Lovász. 10
11 x s PSfrag replacements t y Figure 4: An easy H with no st path distinct. We will write, for example, x 1 x 2 V i for product vertices and H 1 x,y for (H 1 ) x,y. Then H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1 y 2 = H 1 x 1,y 1 H 2 x 2,y 2 H 1 x 1,y 1 H2 x 2,y 2 and H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1y 2 = H 1 x 1,y 1 H2 x 2,y 2 H1 x 1,y 1 H2 x 2,y 2 (5) (6) Now, if Hx 1 1,y 1 Hx 1 H 1 1,y 1 x 1,y H 1 1 x 1,y and H2 1 x 2,y 2 Hx 2 H 2 2,y 2 x 2,y 2H 2 x 2,y, then (5) and (6) imply 2 H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x H 2,y 1 y 2 x 1 x 2,y 1 H y 2 x 1 x 2,y 1y 2. This if H 1 and H 2 are Lovász-good, so is H. Conversely, suppose without loss of generality that H 1 is not Lovász-good, and that H 1 x 1,y 1 H 1 x 1,y 1 H1 x 1,y 1 H1 x 1,y 1. Taking x 2 = x 2, y 2 = y 2 for any vertices x 2 V 2,i, y 2 V 2,j such that H 2 x 2,y 2 0, from (5) and (6) we have H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1 y 2 = H1 x 1,y 1 H 1 x 1,y 1 (H2 x 2,y 2 ) 2 and H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1 y 2 = H1 x 1,y 1 H1 x 1,y 1 (H2 x 2,y 2 ) 2. First, suppose that none of Hx 1 1,y 1, Hx 1, H 1 1,y 1 x 1,y H 1, 1 x 1,y is 0. Let Z 1 be the full component of 1 Hx 1 1,y 1 Hx 1 according to Lemma 2.1. Similarly, let Z 2 be the full component of H 1 1,y 1 x 1,y 1H 1 x 1,y. 1 Let Z = (Hx 2 2,y 2 ) 2. To show that H is not Lovász-good, we wish to show Z 1 Z Z 2 Z. By Lemma 3.7, this follows from Z 1 Z 2. Finally, suppose that exactly one of Hx 1 1,y 1, Hx 1, H 1 1,y 1 x 1,y H 1, 1 x 1,y is 0. Then exactly one of 1 H x1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1 y and H 2 x 1 x 2,y 1 y 2 H x 1 x 2,y 1 y is 0, so they are not equivalent under and H 2 is not Lovász-good. The requirement of H being Lovász-good is essentially a rank 1 condition in the algebra A of Section 2.3, and therefore resembles the conditions of [1, 3]. However, since A lacks unique factorisation, difficulties arise which are not present in the analyses of [1, 3]. But a more important difference is that, whereas the conditions of [1, 3] permit only trivial easy graphs, Lovász-good graphs can have complex structure. See Figure 5 for a small example. 11
12 Figure 5: A Lovász-good H 6 Main theorem We can now state the dichotomy theorem for counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs. Theorem 6.1. Let H be a directed acyclic graph. Then #H is in P if H is layered and Lovász-good. Otherwise #H is #P-complete. The proof of Theorem 6.1 will use the following lemma, which we prove later. Lemma 6.2. Suppose H C l is connected, with a single source and sink, and is Lovász-good. There is a polynomial-time algorithm for the following problem. Given a connected G C l with a single source and sink, compute #H(G). Proof of Theorem 6.1. We have already shown that any non-layered H is hard in Lemma 4.4. We have also shown in Lemma 5.3 that H is hard if it is not Lovász-good. Suppose H G l is Lovász-good. We will show how to compute #H(G). First, we may assume that G is connected since, as noted in Section 2.3, if G = G 1 + G 2 then #H(G) = #H(G 1 )#H(G 2 ). We can also assume that H is connected since, for connected G, #(H 1 + H 2 )(G) = #H 1 (G) + #H 2 (G), but H 1 and H 2 are Lovász-good if H 1 + H 2 is. So we can now assume that H C l is connected and G is connected. If G has more than l + 1 non-empty levels then #H(G) = 0. If G has fewer than l non-empty levels then decompose H as in the Proof of Lemma 5.3. So we can assume without loss of generality that both H and G are connected and in C l. Now we just add a new level at the top of H with a single vertex, adjacent to all sources of H and a new level at the bottom of H with a single sink, adjacent to all sinks of H. We do the same to G. Then we use Lemma 6.2. Before proving Lemma 6.2 we need some definitions. Suppose H is a connected graph in C l. For a subset S of sources of H, let H [0,j] S be the subgraph of H [0,j] induced by those vertices from which there is an (undirected) path to S in H [0,j]. We say that H is top-j disjoint if, for every pair of distinct sources s, s, H [0,j] {s} and H[0,j] {s } are disjoint. We say that H is bottom-j disjoint if the reversed graph H R from Remark 4.3 is top-j disjoint. Finally, We say that H is fully disjoint if it is top-(l 1) disjoint and bottom-(l 1) disjoint. We will say that (Q, U, D) is a good factorisation of H if Q, U and D are connected Lovászgood graphs in C l such that QH UD, 12
13 Q has a single source and sink, U has a single sink, and D has a single source. Remark 6.3. The presence of the preconditioner Q in the definition of a good factorisation is due to the absence of unique factorisation in the algebra A. Our algorithm for computing homomorphisms to an Lovász-good H works by factorisation. However, it is possible to have a non-trivial Lovász-good H which is prime. A simple example can be constructed from the graphs H 1, H 2, H 1, H 2 of Example 2.2, by identifying the sources in H 1, H 1 and in H 2, H 2, and the sinks in H 1, H 2 and in H 1, H 2. The resulting 2-source, 2-sink graph has no nontrivial factorisation. We use the following operations on a Lovász-good connected digraph H C l. Local Multiplication: Suppose that U is a connected Lovász-good single-sink graph in C j on levels 0,..., j for j l. Let C be a Lovász-good connected component in H [0,j] with no empty levels. Then Mul(H, C, U) is the graph constructed from H by replacing C with the full component of UC. (Note that there is only one full component, by Lemma 5.4 and 2.1.) Local Division: Suppose S V 0, and that (Q, U, D) is a good factorisation of H [0,j] S. Then Div(H, Q, U, D) is the graph constructed from H by replacing H [0,j] S with D. We can now state our main structural Lemma. Lemma 6.4. If H C l is connected, and Lovász-good, then it has a good factorisation (Q, U, D). We prove Lemma 6.4 below in Section 7. In the course of the proof, we give an algorithm for constructing (Q, U, D). We now describe how we use Lemma 6.4 (and the algorithm) to prove Lemma 6.2. Proof of Lemma 6.2. The proof is by induction on l. The base case is l = 2. (Note that calculating #H(G) is easy in this case.) For the inductive step, suppose l > 2. Let H denote the part of H excluding levels 0 and l and let G denote the part of G excluding levels 0 and l. Using reasoning similar to that in the proof of Theorem 6.1, we can assume that G is connected and then that H is connected. Since H is Lovász-good, so is H. Now by Lemma 6.4 there is a good factorisation (Q, U, D ) of H. Let S V 1 be the nodes in level 1 of H that are adjacent to the source and T V l 1 be the nodes in level l 1 of H that are adjacent to the sink. Note that V 1 is the top level of U and V l 1 is the bottom level of D. Construct Q from Q by adding a new top and bottom level with a new source and sink. Connect the new source and sink to the old ones. Construct D from D by adding a new top and bottom level with a new source and sink. Connect the new source to the old one and the new sink to T. Finally, construct U from U by adding a new top and bottom level with a new source and sink. Connect the new source to S and the new sink to the old one. See Figure 6. Note that (Q, U, D) is a good factorisation of H. To see that QH UD, consider the component of Q H that includes sources and sinks. (There is just one of these. Since H is Lovász-good, it has a directed path from every source to every sink by Lemma 5.4. So does Q. Then use Lemma 2.1.) This is isomorphic to the corresponding component in D U since (Q, U, D ) is a good factorisation of H. The isomorphism maps S in H to a corresponding S in U and now note that the new top level is appropriate in QH and DU. Similarly, the new bottom level is appropriate. Now let s consider how to compute #Q(G). In any homomorphism from G to Q, every node in level 1 of G gets mapped to the singleton in level 1 of Q. Thus, we can collapse all level 1 13
14 PSfrag replacements S S Q H D U T T Figure 6: H nodes of G into a single vertex without changing the problem. At this point, the top level of G and Q are not doing anything, so they can be removed, and we have a sub-problem with fewer levels. So #Q(G) can be computed recursively. The same is true for #D(G) and #U(G). Since G C l, #QH(G) = #Q(G)#H(G). Also, since components without sources and sinks cannot be used to colour G (which has the full l layers), this is equal to #D(G)#U(G). Thus, we can output #H(G) = #D(G)#U(G)/#Q(G). That concludes the proof of Theorem 6.2, so it only remains to prove Lemma 6.4. The proof will be by induction, and we will need the following technical lemmas in the induction. Lemma 6.5. Suppose that H is Lovász-good, top-(j 1) disjoint, S V 0 and H [0,j] S is connected. If (Q, U, D) is a good factorisation of H [0,j] S, then Div(H, Q, U, D) is Lovász-good. Proof. Suppose to the contrary that H = Div(H, Q, U, D) contains a Lovász violation x, x, y, y, with x, x in level i, and y, y in level k. Since D is Lovász-good, we may assume without loss that x is in D, with i < j, and that k > j. Thus y, y are not in D. Let Q, Ũ be Q[i,j], U [i,j], both extended downwards by a single path to level k. There are two cases. If x is in D, Lemma 5.5 gives us a Lovász violation in HŨ [i,k]. (By the proof of Lemma 5.5, this involves nodes at level i and k.) This gives us a Lovász violation in H [i,k] Q[i,k] since these graphs are isomorphic except for components that don t extend down to y and y. Finally, by Lemma 5.5, we find a Lovasz violation in H [i,k], and hence in H, which gives a contradiction. If x is not in D, then let H be Mul( H, D, U). Let w be some vertex on level i of Ũ which has a directed path to the sink z of Ũ. Now by construction H xw,yh x,y H xy Hx y (Ũwz), H xw,y H x,y H xy Hx y(ũwz). Because these graphs all have single sources and sinks (at levels i and k), we can apply Lemma 3.7 to cancel and find a Lovász violation xw, y, x, y in H. Then do a local multiplication multiplying the component of x by Q and again, in the same way, we find a Lov asz violation xw, y, x w, y in the resulting graph, H 14
15 Now since DU QH [0,j] S and since xw does have a path down to level j of H, the component containing xw in H [0,j] is isomorphic to the corresponding component in QH [0,j]. Thus, the same Lovász violation exists in QH (where now we extend the tail of Q all the way down to level l of H. Now to get a Lovász violation in H itself, we use the reasoning from the proof of Theorem 5.5. Say the Loász violation is x Q x H, y Q y H, x Q x H, y Q y H. Then [i,k] [i,k] ( QH) x Q x H y Q y H ( QH) Q x Q x H y Q y xq y Q H xh y H Q x H Q y Q H x, H y H [i,k] [i,k] ( QH) x Q x H ( QH) y Q y H x Q x H,y Qy H Q xq y Q H x H y H Q x Q y H Q x H y. H And since Q is Lovász-good, the first of these is equivalent to Q xq y Q H x H y H Q x Q y Q H x H y H. Now if we had H xh y H H x H y H H x H y H H x H y H we could multiply both sides by Q xq y Q Q x Q y Q to get [i,k] [i,k] [i,k] [i,k] ( QH) x Q x H y Q y H ( QH) ( QH) x Q x H y Q y H x Q x H ( QH) y Q y H x Q x H,y Qy H which is a contradiction since this was a Lovász violation. Lemma 6.6. Suppose that H and U are Lovász-good. Then Mul(H, C, U) is Lovász-good. Proof. Suppose M = Mul(H, C, U) is not Lovász-good. By Lemma 5.5, the full component of UC is Lovász-good, so there is a Lovász violation in levels i and k of M with i j and k > j. Also, one of the relevant vertices in level i is in the component from UC in the local multiplication. First, suppose that both of the relevant vertices in level i are in this component. Then there is a Lovász violation (the same one) in ÛH, where Û extends U with a path. Now restricting attention to levels i k, Lemma 5.5 shows that there is a Lovász violation in H or Û (hence U), which is a contradiction. Second, suppose that only one of the relevant vertices in level i is in the component from CU in the local multiplication. Then the Lovász violation can be written M [i,k] U xc x,y M [i,k] x,y M [i,k] U xc x,y M [i,k] x,y and expanding the product, letting node s on level k, this is Û denote the extension of U downwards with a path to Û [i,k] U x,s H[i,k] C x,y H[i,k] x,y Û [i,k] U x,s H[i,k] C x,y H [i,k] x,y. But this gives us a Lovász violation in H, which is a contradiction. 15
16 7 Proof of Lemma 6.4 A top-dangler is a component in H [1,l 1] that is incident to a source but not to a sink. Similarly, a bottom-dangler is a component in H [1,l 1] that is incident to a sink but not to a source. (Note that a bottom-dangler in H is a top-dangler in H R.) The proof of Lemma 6.4 will be by induction. The base case will be l = 1, where it is easy to see that a connected Lovász-good H must be a complete bipartite graph. The ordering for the induction will be lexicographic on the following criteria (in order). 1. the number of levels, 2. the number of sources, 3. the number of top-danglers, 4. the number of sinks, 5. the number of bottom-danglers. Thus, for example, if H has fewer levels than H then H precedes H in the induction. If H and H have the same number of levels, the same number of sources and the same number of top-danglers but H has fewer sinks then H precedes H in the induction. The inductive step will be broken into cases. The cases are exhaustive but not mutually exclusive given an H we will apply the first case that applies. Case 1: H is top-(j 1) disjoint and has a top dangler with depth at most j 1. Case 2: For j < l, H is top-(j 1) disjoint, but not top-j disjoint, and has no top dangler with depth at most j 1. Case 3: H is top-(l 1) disjoint and has no top dangler and is bottom-(j 1) disjoint and has a bottom dangler with height at most (j 1). Case 4: For j < l, H is top-(l 1) disjoint and has no top dangler and is bottom-(j 1) disjoint, but not bottom-j disjoint, and has no bottom dangler with height at most (j 1). Case 5: H is fully disjoint. and has no top danglers or bottom danglers. 7.1 Case 1 Let R be a top dangler with depth at most j 1 (meaning that it is a component in H [1,...,l 1] that is incident to a source but not to a sink, also that levels j,..., l 1 are empty). Note that since H is top-(j 1) disjoint, R must be adjacent to a single source, v, in H. This follows from the definition of top-(j 1) disjoint, and from the fact that R has depth at most j 1. Define j to be the highest level on which R is non-empty. Note that j {1,..., j 1}. Construct H from H by removing R. Note that H is connected. By construction (from H), H is Lovász-good, and has no non-empty levels. It precedes H in the induction order since it has the same number of levels, the same number of sources and one fewer top-dangler. By induction, it has a good factorisation (Q, U, D ) so Q H U D. 16
17 Construct D as follows. On layers 1 j, D is identical to D. On layers j + 2 l, D is a path. Every node in level j is connected to the singleton vertex in level j + 1. Then clearly DQ H ÛD where Û is the single full component of DU. (There is just one of these. Since D is Lovász-good, it has a directed path from every source to every sink by Lemma 5.4. So does U. Then use Lemma 2.1.) Note that Û has a single sink. Let R be the graph obtained from R by adding the source v. Let R be Q [0,j ] R. Form U from R and Û by identifying v with the appropriate source of Û. (Note that Û has the same sources as H). Then DQ H U D. Thus, we have a good factorisation (Q, U, D ) of H by taking Q to be the full component of DQ and U to be the full component of U. To see that it is a good factorisation, use Lemma 5.5 to show that Q and U are Lovász-good. 7.2 Case 2 Partition the sources of H into equivalence classes S 1,..., S k so that the graphs H [0,j] S i are connected and pairwise disjoint. See Figure 7. Since H is not top-j disjoint some equivalence class, say S 1, contains more than one source. V 0 S 1 S 2 S k Ĥ V j PSfrag replacements Figure 7: H Let Ĥ denote H[0,j] S 1. Ĥ is shorter than H, so it comes before H in the induction order. It is connected by construction of the equivalence classes, and it is Lovász-good by virtue of being a subgraph of H. By induction we can construct a good factorisation ( Q, Û, D) of Ĥ. Let H = Div(H, Q, Û, D). See Figure 8. H comes before H in the induction order because it has the same number of levels, but fewer sources. To see that H is connected note that H is connected and Ĥ is connected. Since ( Q, Û, D) is a good factorisation), we know D is connected, so H is connected. By Lemma 6.5, H is Lovász-good. By induction, we can construct a good factorisation (Q, U, D ) of H. Let s be the (single) source of D. By construction, the sources of U are {s} S 2 S k. See Figure 9. Let C 1,..., C z be the connected components of U [0,j]. Let C 1 be the component containing s. Since the H [0,j] S i are connected and pairwise disjoint, and Q has a single source, 17
18 V 0 s S 2 S k D V j PSfrag replacements Figure 8: H there is a single connected component of (Q H ) [0,j] containing all of S i (and no other sources) so (see Figure 9) there is a single connected component of U [0,j] containing all of S i (and no other sources). For convenience, call this C i. If z > k then components C k+1,..., C z do not contain any sources. (They are due to danglers in U, which in this case are nodes that are not descendants of a source.) Now consider U 1 = Mul(U, C 1, Û). U 1 is the graph constructed from U by replacing C 1 with the full component of C 1 Û. For i {2,..., z}, let U i = Mul(U i 1, C i, Q). U z is the graph constructed from U by replacing C 1 with the full component of C 1 Û and replacing every other C i with the full component of C i Q. Let Q extend Q down to level l with a single path. We claim that Q QH Uz D. (7) To establish Equation (7) note that on levels [j,..., l] the left-hand side is (Q QH) [j,l] (Q H ) [j,l]. Any components of Q H that differ from U D do not include level l, so this is equivalent to (U D ) [j,l] (U z D ) [j,l], which is the right-hand side. So focus on levels 0,..., j. From the left-hand side, look at the component (Q [0,j] QH) S 1. Note that it is connected. It is (Q [0,j] QĤ) [0,j] S 1 which is the right-hand side. (Q [0,j] Û Then look at the component S 2. (Q QH) [0,j] S 2 D) [0,j] S 1 ((D [0,j] U [0,j] ){s} Û) [0,j] (Q [0,j] QH [0,j] ) S2 ((D [0,j] U [0,j] ) S2 Q) [0,j] S 2 18 S 1 (D U z ) [0,j] S 1, (D U z ) [0,j] S 2.
19 s S 2 S k s S 2 S k PSfrag replacements Q H D U D Figure 9: Q H D U The other components containing sources (which are the only components that we care about) are similar. Having established (7), we observe that (Q, U, D ) is a good factorisation of H where Q is the full component of Q Q and U is the full component of Uz. Use Lemma 5.5 to show Q is Lovász-good and Lemma 6.6 to show that U z is. 7.3 Case 3 We apply the analysis of Section 7.1 to the reversed graph from Remark 4.3. Let H R be an instance in Case 3. Thus H is top-(j 1) disjoint and has a top-dangler with depth at most j 1. Also, H is bottom-(l 1) disjoint and has no bottom dangler. Apply the transformation in Section 7.1 to H. This produces as inductive instance H. As we noted in Section 7.1, H precedes H in the induction order since it has the same number of levels, the same number of sources and one fewer top-dangler. Crucially, H has the same number of sinks as H and the same number of bottom-danglers as H. (We have not added any.) Thus, H R precedes H R in the inductive order. It has one fewer bottom-dangler and everything else is the same. Then the good factoring (Q, U, D) of H that we produce gives us a good factoring (Q R, D R, U R ) of H R. 7.4 Case 4 We apply the analysis of Section 7.2 to the reversed graph from Remark 4.3. Let H R be an instance in Case 4. The reversed graph H is bottom-(l 1)-disjoint with no bottom dangler. For some j < l, it is top-(j 1)-disjoint, but not top-j disjoint and has no top-dangler with depth at most j 1. Apply the analysis in Case 3. This produces a recursive instance H with fewer sources. H has the same number of levels as H. Furthermore, H has the same number of sinks as H and the same number of bottom danglers. Thus, H R has fewer sinks than H R, but the same number of levels, sources, and top-danglers. So it precedes H R in the induction order. Then the good factoring (Q, U, D) of H that we produce gives us a good factoring (Q R, D R, U R ) of H R. 19
20 7.5 Case 5 In the fully disjoint case, the subgraphs H st (s V 0, t V l ) satisfy {s}, if s = s, t t ; H st H s t = {t}, if s s, t = t ;, (8), if s s, t t. H st 0 and H st H s t H st H s t, since H is Lovász-good. We will assume without loss that V 0 > 1 and V l > 1, since otherwise (1, H, 1) or (1, 1, H) is a good factorisation. See Figure 10. V 0 s 1 s 2 s 3 PSfrag replacements H st V l t 1 t 2 t 3 Figure 10: Fully disjoint case Choose any s V 0, t V l, and let Q = H s t. Note that Q is connected with a single source and sink, and is Lovász-good because H is Lovász-good. Let D be the subgraph t V l H s t of H, and let U be the subgraph s V 0 H st of H. These are both connected and Lovász-good since H is. Clearly D has a single source and U has a single sink. Also QH DU follows from (8) and from the fact that there are no top-danglers or bottom-danglers and (DU) s s,tt = D s tu st H s th st = H s t H st = QH st (s V 0 ; t V l ), (9) where we have used the fact that H is Lovász-good. Thus (Q, U, D) is a good factorisation of H. References [1] A. Bulatov and M. Grohe, The complexity of partition functions, in Automata, Languages & Programming: 31st International Colloquium, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3142, pp , [2] A. Bulatov and V. Dalmau, Towards a dichotomy theorem for the counting constraint satisfaction problem, in Proc. 44th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE, pp ,
21 [3] M. Dyer and C. Greenhill, The complexity of counting graph homomorphisms, Random Structures & Algorithms 17 (2000), [4] S. Even and A. Litman, Layered cross product: a technique to construct interconnection networks. Networks 29 (1997), [5] T. Feder and M. Vardi, Monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction, 25th STOC [6] T. Feder and M. Vardi, The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: a study through Datalog and group theory, SIAM J. Comput. (28) (1998) [7] P. Hell and J. Nešetřil, On the complexity of H-coloring, Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B 48 (1990), [8] P. Hell and J. Nešetřil, Graphs and homomorphisms, Oxford University Press, [9] W. Imrich and S. Klavžar, Product graphs: structure and recognition, Wiley, New York, [10] L. Lovász, Operations with structures, Acta. Math. Acad. Sci. Hung., 18 (1967), [11] J. van Lint and R. Wilson, A course in combinatorics (2nd ed.), CUP, Cambridge, ECCC ISSN ftp://ftp.eccc.uni-trier.de/pub/eccc ftpmail@ftp.eccc.uni-trier.de, subject help eccc
On counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs
On counting homomorphisms to directed acyclic graphs Martin Dyer Leslie Ann Goldberg Mike Paterson October 13, 2006 Abstract It is known that if P and NP are different then there is an infinite hierarchy
More informationOn Counting Homomorphisms to Directed Acyclic Graphs
27 On Counting Homomorphisms to Directed Acyclic Graphs MARTIN DYER University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom LESLIE ANN GOLDBERG University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom AND MIKE PATERSON University
More informationA Decidable Dichotomy Theorem on Directed Graph Homomorphisms with Non-negative Weights
A Decidable Dichotomy Theorem on Directed Graph Homomorphisms with Non-negative Weights Jin-Yi Cai Xi Chen April 7, 2010 Abstract The compleity of graph homomorphism problems has been the subject of intense
More informationCorrigendum: The complexity of counting graph homomorphisms
Corrigendum: The complexity of counting graph homomorphisms Martin Dyer School of Computing University of Leeds Leeds, U.K. LS2 9JT dyer@comp.leeds.ac.uk Catherine Greenhill School of Mathematics The University
More informationThe complexity of counting graph homomorphisms
The complexity of counting graph homomorphisms Martin Dyer and Catherine Greenhill Abstract The problem of counting homomorphisms from a general graph G to a fixed graph H is a natural generalisation of
More informationMAL TSEV CONSTRAINTS MADE SIMPLE
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 97 (2004) MAL TSEV CONSTRAINTS MADE SIMPLE Departament de Tecnologia, Universitat Pompeu Fabra Estació de França, Passeig de la circumval.lació,
More informationCounting Matrix Partitions of Graphs
Counting Matrix Partitions of Graphs David Richerby University of Oxford Joint work with Martin Dyer, Andreas Göbel, Leslie Ann Goldberg, Colin McQuillan and Tomoyuki Yamakami David Richerby (Oxford) Counting
More informationThis article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
More informationPreliminaries. Graphs. E : set of edges (arcs) (Undirected) Graph : (i, j) = (j, i) (edges) V = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, E = {(1, 3), (3, 2), (2, 4)}
Preliminaries Graphs G = (V, E), V : set of vertices E : set of edges (arcs) (Undirected) Graph : (i, j) = (j, i) (edges) 1 2 3 5 4 V = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, E = {(1, 3), (3, 2), (2, 4)} 1 Directed Graph (Digraph)
More informationCopyright 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Meeks, K., and Scott, A. (2014) Spanning trees and the complexity of floodfilling games. Theory of Computing Systems, 54 (4). pp. 731-753. ISSN 1432-4350 Copyright 2013 Springer Science+Business Media
More informationGraph coloring, perfect graphs
Lecture 5 (05.04.2013) Graph coloring, perfect graphs Scribe: Tomasz Kociumaka Lecturer: Marcin Pilipczuk 1 Introduction to graph coloring Definition 1. Let G be a simple undirected graph and k a positive
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS European Journal of Combinatorics ( )
European Journal of Combinatorics ( ) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Combinatorics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejc Proof of a conjecture concerning the direct
More informationPosets, homomorphisms and homogeneity
Posets, homomorphisms and homogeneity Peter J. Cameron and D. Lockett School of Mathematical Sciences Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road London E1 4NS, U.K. Abstract Jarik Nešetřil suggested
More informationExtremal Graphs Having No Stable Cutsets
Extremal Graphs Having No Stable Cutsets Van Bang Le Institut für Informatik Universität Rostock Rostock, Germany le@informatik.uni-rostock.de Florian Pfender Department of Mathematics and Statistics University
More informationInduced Subgraph Isomorphism on proper interval and bipartite permutation graphs
Induced Subgraph Isomorphism on proper interval and bipartite permutation graphs Pinar Heggernes Pim van t Hof Daniel Meister Yngve Villanger Abstract Given two graphs G and H as input, the Induced Subgraph
More informationDichotomy Theorems for Counting Problems. Jin-Yi Cai University of Wisconsin, Madison. Xi Chen Columbia University. Pinyan Lu Microsoft Research Asia
Dichotomy Theorems for Counting Problems Jin-Yi Cai University of Wisconsin, Madison Xi Chen Columbia University Pinyan Lu Microsoft Research Asia 1 Counting Problems Valiant defined the class #P, and
More informationMinimum Cost Homomorphisms to Semicomplete Multipartite Digraphs
Minimum Cost Homomorphisms to Semicomplete Multipartite Digraphs Gregory Gutin Arash Rafiey Anders Yeo Abstract For digraphs D and H, a mapping f : V (D) V (H) is a homomorphism of D to H if uv A(D) implies
More informationMatroid intersection, base packing and base covering for infinite matroids
Matroid intersection, base packing and base covering for infinite matroids Nathan Bowler Johannes Carmesin June 25, 2014 Abstract As part of the recent developments in infinite matroid theory, there have
More informationOn shredders and vertex connectivity augmentation
On shredders and vertex connectivity augmentation Gilad Liberman The Open University of Israel giladliberman@gmail.com Zeev Nutov The Open University of Israel nutov@openu.ac.il Abstract We consider the
More informationTopics in Graph Theory
Topics in Graph Theory September 4, 2018 1 Preliminaries A graph is a system G = (V, E) consisting of a set V of vertices and a set E (disjoint from V ) of edges, together with an incidence function End
More informationTHERE ARE NO PURE RELATIONAL WIDTH 2 CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS. Keywords: Computational Complexity, Constraint Satisfaction Problems.
THERE ARE NO PURE RELATIONAL WIDTH 2 CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS Departament de tecnologies de la informació i les comunicacions, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Estació de França, Passeig de la circumval.laci
More informationDISTINGUISHING PARTITIONS AND ASYMMETRIC UNIFORM HYPERGRAPHS
DISTINGUISHING PARTITIONS AND ASYMMETRIC UNIFORM HYPERGRAPHS M. N. ELLINGHAM AND JUSTIN Z. SCHROEDER In memory of Mike Albertson. Abstract. A distinguishing partition for an action of a group Γ on a set
More informationAcyclic Digraphs arising from Complete Intersections
Acyclic Digraphs arising from Complete Intersections Walter D. Morris, Jr. George Mason University wmorris@gmu.edu July 8, 2016 Abstract We call a directed acyclic graph a CI-digraph if a certain affine
More informationCOUNTING LIST MATRIX PARTITIONS OF GRAPHS
COUNTING LIST MATRIX PARTITIONS OF GRAPHS ANDREAS GÖBEL, LESLIE ANN GOLDBERG, COLIN MCQUILLAN, DAVID RICHERBY, AND TOMOYUKI YAMAKAMI Abstract. Given a symmetric D D matrix M over {0,1, }, a list M-partition
More informationOn the hardness of losing width
On the hardness of losing width Marek Cygan 1, Daniel Lokshtanov 2, Marcin Pilipczuk 1, Micha l Pilipczuk 1, and Saket Saurabh 3 1 Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Poland {cygan@,malcin@,mp248287@students}mimuwedupl
More informationOut-colourings of Digraphs
Out-colourings of Digraphs N. Alon J. Bang-Jensen S. Bessy July 13, 2017 Abstract We study vertex colourings of digraphs so that no out-neighbourhood is monochromatic and call such a colouring an out-colouring.
More informationTutorial on the Constraint Satisfaction Problem
Tutorial on the Constraint Satisfaction Problem Miklós Maróti Vanderbilt University and University of Szeged Nový Smokovec, 2012. September 2 7. Miklós Maróti (Vanderbilt and Szeged) The Constraint Satisfaction
More informationEquational Logic. Chapter Syntax Terms and Term Algebras
Chapter 2 Equational Logic 2.1 Syntax 2.1.1 Terms and Term Algebras The natural logic of algebra is equational logic, whose propositions are universally quantified identities between terms built up from
More informationReverse mathematics of some topics from algorithmic graph theory
F U N D A M E N T A MATHEMATICAE 157 (1998) Reverse mathematics of some topics from algorithmic graph theory by Peter G. C l o t e (Chestnut Hill, Mass.) and Jeffry L. H i r s t (Boone, N.C.) Abstract.
More informationRECOGNIZING WEIGHTED DIRECTED CARTESIAN GRAPH BUNDLES
Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 20 (2000 ) 39 56 RECOGNIZING WEIGHTED DIRECTED CARTESIAN GRAPH BUNDLES Blaž Zmazek Department of Mathematics, PEF, University of Maribor Koroška 160, si-2000 Maribor,
More informationPaths and cycles in extended and decomposable digraphs
Paths and cycles in extended and decomposable digraphs Jørgen Bang-Jensen Gregory Gutin Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Odense University, Denmark Abstract We consider digraphs called extended
More informationON COST MATRICES WITH TWO AND THREE DISTINCT VALUES OF HAMILTONIAN PATHS AND CYCLES
ON COST MATRICES WITH TWO AND THREE DISTINCT VALUES OF HAMILTONIAN PATHS AND CYCLES SANTOSH N. KABADI AND ABRAHAM P. PUNNEN Abstract. Polynomially testable characterization of cost matrices associated
More informationA quasisymmetric function generalization of the chromatic symmetric function
A quasisymmetric function generalization of the chromatic symmetric function Brandon Humpert University of Kansas Lawrence, KS bhumpert@math.ku.edu Submitted: May 5, 2010; Accepted: Feb 3, 2011; Published:
More informationK 4 -free graphs with no odd holes
K 4 -free graphs with no odd holes Maria Chudnovsky 1 Columbia University, New York NY 10027 Neil Robertson 2 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Paul Seymour 3 Princeton University, Princeton
More informationBounded width problems and algebras
Algebra univers. 56 (2007) 439 466 0002-5240/07/030439 28, published online February 21, 2007 DOI 10.1007/s00012-007-2012-6 c Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2007 Algebra Universalis Bounded width problems and
More informationIndex coding with side information
Index coding with side information Ehsan Ebrahimi Targhi University of Tartu Abstract. The Index Coding problem has attracted a considerable amount of attention in the recent years. The problem is motivated
More informationDecomposing oriented graphs into transitive tournaments
Decomposing oriented graphs into transitive tournaments Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics University of Haifa Haifa 39105, Israel Abstract For an oriented graph G with n vertices, let f(g) denote
More informationMulti-coloring and Mycielski s construction
Multi-coloring and Mycielski s construction Tim Meagher Fall 2010 Abstract We consider a number of related results taken from two papers one by W. Lin [1], and the other D. C. Fisher[2]. These articles
More informationAcyclic and Oriented Chromatic Numbers of Graphs
Acyclic and Oriented Chromatic Numbers of Graphs A. V. Kostochka Novosibirsk State University 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia X. Zhu Dept. of Applied Mathematics National Sun Yat-Sen University Kaohsiung,
More informationSome hard families of parameterised counting problems
Some hard families of parameterised counting problems Mark Jerrum and Kitty Meeks School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London {m.jerrum,k.meeks}@qmul.ac.uk September 2014 Abstract
More informationFour-coloring P 6 -free graphs. I. Extending an excellent precoloring
Four-coloring P 6 -free graphs. I. Extending an excellent precoloring Maria Chudnovsky Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 Sophie Spirkl Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 Mingxian Zhong Columbia
More informationDEGREE SEQUENCES OF INFINITE GRAPHS
DEGREE SEQUENCES OF INFINITE GRAPHS ANDREAS BLASS AND FRANK HARARY ABSTRACT The degree sequences of finite graphs, finite connected graphs, finite trees and finite forests have all been characterized.
More informationPrime Factorization and Domination in the Hierarchical Product of Graphs
Prime Factorization and Domination in the Hierarchical Product of Graphs S. E. Anderson 1, Y. Guo 2, A. Rubin 2 and K. Wash 2 1 Department of Mathematics, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN 55105 2
More informationACYCLIC DIGRAPHS GIVING RISE TO COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS
ACYCLIC DIGRAPHS GIVING RISE TO COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS WALTER D. MORRIS, JR. ABSTRACT. We call a directed acyclic graph a CIdigraph if a certain affine semigroup ring defined by it is a complete intersection.
More informationProbabilistic Proofs of Existence of Rare Events. Noga Alon
Probabilistic Proofs of Existence of Rare Events Noga Alon Department of Mathematics Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel Aviv University Ramat-Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978 ISRAEL 1. The Local Lemma In a typical
More informationTree sets. Reinhard Diestel
1 Tree sets Reinhard Diestel Abstract We study an abstract notion of tree structure which generalizes treedecompositions of graphs and matroids. Unlike tree-decompositions, which are too closely linked
More informationBounds on parameters of minimally non-linear patterns
Bounds on parameters of minimally non-linear patterns P.A. CrowdMath Department of Mathematics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts, U.S.A. crowdmath@artofproblemsolving.com Submitted: Jan
More informationEnumerating Homomorphisms
Enumerating Homomorphisms Andrei A. Bulatov School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada Víctor Dalmau 1, Department of Information and Communication Technologies, Universitat
More informationComplexity of locally injective homomorphism to the Theta graphs
Complexity of locally injective homomorphism to the Theta graphs Bernard Lidický and Marek Tesař Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University, Malostranské nám. 25, 118 00 Prague, Czech Republic
More informationGraph homomorphisms. Peter J. Cameron. Combinatorics Study Group Notes, September 2006
Graph homomorphisms Peter J. Cameron Combinatorics Study Group Notes, September 2006 Abstract This is a brief introduction to graph homomorphisms, hopefully a prelude to a study of the paper [1]. 1 Homomorphisms
More informationThe Strong Largeur d Arborescence
The Strong Largeur d Arborescence Rik Steenkamp (5887321) November 12, 2013 Master Thesis Supervisor: prof.dr. Monique Laurent Local Supervisor: prof.dr. Alexander Schrijver KdV Institute for Mathematics
More informationGeneralized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs
Europ. J. Combinatorics (2002) 23, 257 274 doi:10.1006/eujc.2002.0574 Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Generalized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs ANTHONY BONATO, PETER
More informationThe Algorithmic Aspects of the Regularity Lemma
The Algorithmic Aspects of the Regularity Lemma N. Alon R. A. Duke H. Lefmann V. Rödl R. Yuster Abstract The Regularity Lemma of Szemerédi is a result that asserts that every graph can be partitioned in
More informationEdmonds Branching Theorem in Digraphs without Forward-infinite Paths arxiv: v1 [math.co] 1 May 2017
Edmonds Branching Theorem in Digraphs without Forward-infinite Paths arxiv:1705.00471v1 [math.co] 1 May 2017 Attila Joó 2014 This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [6], which has been
More informationCaterpillar duality for CSP. C. Carvalho (UoD), V. Dalmau (UPF) and A. Krokhin (UoD)
Caterpillar duality for CSP C. Carvalho (UoD), V. Dalmau (UPF) and A. Krokhin (UoD) Motivation The following problems Scheduling; System of linear equations; Drawing up a timetable; Check the satisfiability
More informationGraph Theory. Thomas Bloom. February 6, 2015
Graph Theory Thomas Bloom February 6, 2015 1 Lecture 1 Introduction A graph (for the purposes of these lectures) is a finite set of vertices, some of which are connected by a single edge. Most importantly,
More informationGroup connectivity of certain graphs
Group connectivity of certain graphs Jingjing Chen, Elaine Eschen, Hong-Jian Lai May 16, 2005 Abstract Let G be an undirected graph, A be an (additive) Abelian group and A = A {0}. A graph G is A-connected
More informationFractal property of the graph homomorphism order
Fractal property of the graph homomorphism order Jiří Fiala a,1, Jan Hubička b,2, Yangjing Long c,3, Jaroslav Nešetřil b,2 a Department of Applied Mathematics Charles University Prague, Czech Republic
More informationOn disconnected cuts and separators
On disconnected cuts and separators Takehiro Ito 1, Marcin Kamiński 2, Daniël Paulusma 3 and Dimitrios M. Thilikos 4 1 Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, Aoba-yama 6-6-05, Sendai,
More information5 Flows and cuts in digraphs
5 Flows and cuts in digraphs Recall that a digraph or network is a pair G = (V, E) where V is a set and E is a multiset of ordered pairs of elements of V, which we refer to as arcs. Note that two vertices
More informationStrongly chordal and chordal bipartite graphs are sandwich monotone
Strongly chordal and chordal bipartite graphs are sandwich monotone Pinar Heggernes Federico Mancini Charis Papadopoulos R. Sritharan Abstract A graph class is sandwich monotone if, for every pair of its
More informationList Decomposition of Graphs
List Decomposition of Graphs Yair Caro Raphael Yuster Abstract A family of graphs possesses the common gcd property if the greatest common divisor of the degree sequence of each graph in the family is
More informationA Characterization of (3+1)-Free Posets
Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 93, 231241 (2001) doi:10.1006jcta.2000.3075, available online at http:www.idealibrary.com on A Characterization of (3+1)-Free Posets Mark Skandera Department of
More information7 The structure of graphs excluding a topological minor
7 The structure of graphs excluding a topological minor Grohe and Marx [39] proved the following structure theorem for graphs excluding a topological minor: Theorem 7.1 ([39]). For every positive integer
More informationCourse : Algebraic Combinatorics
Course 18.312: Algebraic Combinatorics Lecture Notes #29-31 Addendum by Gregg Musiker April 24th - 29th, 2009 The following material can be found in several sources including Sections 14.9 14.13 of Algebraic
More informationDiscrete Applied Mathematics
Discrete Applied Mathematics 159 (2011) 1345 1351 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Applied Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dam On disconnected cuts and separators
More informationBichain graphs: geometric model and universal graphs
Bichain graphs: geometric model and universal graphs Robert Brignall a,1, Vadim V. Lozin b,, Juraj Stacho b, a Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United
More informationStandard Diraphs the (unique) digraph with no vertices or edges. (modulo n) for every 1 i n A digraph whose underlying graph is a complete graph.
5 Directed Graphs What is a directed graph? Directed Graph: A directed graph, or digraph, D, consists of a set of vertices V (D), a set of edges E(D), and a function which assigns each edge e an ordered
More informationInduced Saturation of Graphs
Induced Saturation of Graphs Maria Axenovich a and Mónika Csikós a a Institute of Algebra and Geometry, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Englerstraße 2, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany Abstract A graph G is
More informationClaw-free Graphs. III. Sparse decomposition
Claw-free Graphs. III. Sparse decomposition Maria Chudnovsky 1 and Paul Seymour Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544 October 14, 003; revised May 8, 004 1 This research was conducted while the author
More informationDECOMPOSITIONS OF MULTIGRAPHS INTO PARTS WITH THE SAME SIZE
Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 30 (2010 ) 335 347 DECOMPOSITIONS OF MULTIGRAPHS INTO PARTS WITH THE SAME SIZE Jaroslav Ivančo Institute of Mathematics P.J. Šafári University, Jesenná 5 SK-041 54
More informationA short course on matching theory, ECNU Shanghai, July 2011.
A short course on matching theory, ECNU Shanghai, July 2011. Sergey Norin LECTURE 3 Tight cuts, bricks and braces. 3.1. Outline of Lecture Ear decomposition of bipartite graphs. Tight cut decomposition.
More informationDept. of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
EuroComb 2005 DMTCS proc. AE, 2005, 67 72 Directed One-Trees William Evans and Mohammad Ali Safari Dept. of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. {will,safari}@cs.ubc.ca
More informationSiegel s Theorem, Edge Coloring, and a Holant Dichotomy
Siegel s Theorem, Edge Coloring, and a Holant Dichotomy Jin-Yi Cai (University of Wisconsin-Madison) Joint with: Heng Guo and Tyson Williams (University of Wisconsin-Madison) 1 / 117 2 / 117 Theorem (Siegel
More informationT -choosability in graphs
T -choosability in graphs Noga Alon 1 Department of Mathematics, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. and Ayal Zaks 2 Department of Statistics and
More informationDisjoint paths in unions of tournaments
Disjoint paths in unions of tournaments Maria Chudnovsky 1 Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA Alex Scott Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK Paul Seymour 2 Princeton
More information1 Matchings in Non-Bipartite Graphs
CS 598CSC: Combinatorial Optimization Lecture date: Feb 9, 010 Instructor: Chandra Chekuri Scribe: Matthew Yancey 1 Matchings in Non-Bipartite Graphs We discuss matching in general undirected graphs. Given
More informationAN ALGORITHM FOR CONSTRUCTING A k-tree FOR A k-connected MATROID
AN ALGORITHM FOR CONSTRUCTING A k-tree FOR A k-connected MATROID NICK BRETTELL AND CHARLES SEMPLE Dedicated to James Oxley on the occasion of his 60th birthday Abstract. For a k-connected matroid M, Clark
More informationA MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ
A MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ NICOLAS FORD Abstract. The goal of this paper is to present a proof of the Nullstellensatz using tools from a branch of logic called model theory. In
More informationEven Cycles in Hypergraphs.
Even Cycles in Hypergraphs. Alexandr Kostochka Jacques Verstraëte Abstract A cycle in a hypergraph A is an alternating cyclic sequence A 0, v 0, A 1, v 1,..., A k 1, v k 1, A 0 of distinct edges A i and
More informationArc-chromatic number of digraphs in which every vertex has bounded outdegree or bounded indegree
Arc-chromatic number of digraphs in which every vertex has bounded outdegree or bounded indegree S. Bessy and F. Havet, Projet Mascotte, CNRS/INRIA/UNSA, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, 2004 route des Lucioles
More informationGenerating p-extremal graphs
Generating p-extremal graphs Derrick Stolee Department of Mathematics Department of Computer Science University of Nebraska Lincoln s-dstolee1@math.unl.edu August 2, 2011 Abstract Let f(n, p be the maximum
More informationOn the number of cycles in a graph with restricted cycle lengths
On the number of cycles in a graph with restricted cycle lengths Dániel Gerbner, Balázs Keszegh, Cory Palmer, Balázs Patkós arxiv:1610.03476v1 [math.co] 11 Oct 2016 October 12, 2016 Abstract Let L be a
More informationTHE DECK RATIO AND SELF-REPAIRING GRAPHS
THE DECK RATIO AND SELF-REPAIRING GRAPHS YULIA BUGAEV AND FELIX GOLDBERG Abstract. In this paper we define, for a graph invariant ψ, the ψ(g) deck ratio of ψ by D ψ (G) = P ψ(g v). We give generic upper
More informationEfficient Reassembling of Graphs, Part 1: The Linear Case
Efficient Reassembling of Graphs, Part 1: The Linear Case Assaf Kfoury Boston University Saber Mirzaei Boston University Abstract The reassembling of a simple connected graph G = (V, E) is an abstraction
More informationPreliminaries and Complexity Theory
Preliminaries and Complexity Theory Oleksandr Romanko CAS 746 - Advanced Topics in Combinatorial Optimization McMaster University, January 16, 2006 Introduction Book structure: 2 Part I Linear Algebra
More informationDistinguishing Cartesian powers of graphs
Distinguishing Cartesian powers of graphs Wilfried Imrich Sandi Klavžar Abstract The distinguishing number D(G) of a graph is the least integer d such that there is a d-labeling of the vertices of G that
More informationDiscrete Mathematics. The average degree of a multigraph critical with respect to edge or total choosability
Discrete Mathematics 310 (010 1167 1171 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/disc The average degree of a multigraph critical with respect
More informationThe Interlace Polynomial of Graphs at 1
The Interlace Polynomial of Graphs at 1 PN Balister B Bollobás J Cutler L Pebody July 3, 2002 Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152 USA Abstract In this paper we
More informationDefinitions. Notations. Injective, Surjective and Bijective. Divides. Cartesian Product. Relations. Equivalence Relations
Page 1 Definitions Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:23 AM Notations " " means "equals, by definition" the set of all real numbers the set of integers Denote a function from a set to a set by Denote the image of
More informationSergey Norin Department of Mathematics and Statistics McGill University Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada. and
NON-PLANAR EXTENSIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS OF PLANAR GRAPHS Sergey Norin Department of Mathematics and Statistics McGill University Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada and Robin Thomas 1 School of Mathematics
More informationACO Comprehensive Exam March 17 and 18, Computability, Complexity and Algorithms
1. Computability, Complexity and Algorithms (a) Let G(V, E) be an undirected unweighted graph. Let C V be a vertex cover of G. Argue that V \ C is an independent set of G. (b) Minimum cardinality vertex
More informationON THE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS OF A GRAPH
Volume 5, Number 1, Pages 34 58 ISSN 1715-0868 ON THE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS OF A GRAPH HAMZA SI KADDOUR AND ELIAS TAHHAN BITTAR Abstract. Let G := (V, E be a simple graph; for I V we denote by l(i the number
More informationDecomposition of random graphs into complete bipartite graphs
Decomposition of random graphs into complete bipartite graphs Fan Chung Xing Peng Abstract We consider the problem of partitioning the edge set of a graph G into the minimum number τg) of edge-disjoint
More informationCIRCULAR CHROMATIC NUMBER AND GRAPH MINORS. Xuding Zhu 1. INTRODUCTION
TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 643-660, December 2000 CIRCULAR CHROMATIC NUMBER AND GRAPH MINORS Xuding Zhu Abstract. This paper proves that for any integer n 4 and any rational number
More informationThe Turán number of sparse spanning graphs
The Turán number of sparse spanning graphs Noga Alon Raphael Yuster Abstract For a graph H, the extremal number ex(n, H) is the maximum number of edges in a graph of order n not containing a subgraph isomorphic
More informationContainment restrictions
Containment restrictions Tibor Szabó Extremal Combinatorics, FU Berlin, WiSe 207 8 In this chapter we switch from studying constraints on the set operation intersection, to constraints on the set relation
More informationON DOMINATING THE CARTESIAN PRODUCT OF A GRAPH AND K 2. Bert L. Hartnell
Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 24 (2004 ) 389 402 ON DOMINATING THE CARTESIAN PRODUCT OF A GRAPH AND K 2 Bert L. Hartnell Saint Mary s University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3C3 e-mail: bert.hartnell@smu.ca
More informationThe Reduction of Graph Families Closed under Contraction
The Reduction of Graph Families Closed under Contraction Paul A. Catlin, Department of Mathematics Wayne State University, Detroit MI 48202 November 24, 2004 Abstract Let S be a family of graphs. Suppose
More informationThe complexity of the list homomorphism problem for graphs
The complexity of the list homomorphism problem for graphs László Egri, Andrei Krokhin, Benoit Larose, Pascal Tesson April 2, 2009 Abstract We completely characterise the computational complexity of the
More information